Sunday, June 12, 2016

The Thing About Guns

Chanting that "guns don't kill people" and that "people kill people" has never made a lot of sense to me. I mean, I get it. The person shouting it is probably trying to demonstrate in some way that guns are not the problem and so guns shouldn't be regulated. These are inanimate objects. Why should we blame the inanimate object? We should instead blame the person controlling the inanimate object.

Of course, nobody supporting gun control advocates for blaming guns insteadof the people who wield them. And really, the propriety of theoretical "blaming" of the inanimate object is a pointless debate. Inanimate objects don't have a conscience, so they aren't going to feel bad if we point the finger at them.

How people in this country do not see that nearly unfettered access to a very dangerous thing is problematic is something I cannot understand. How there are so many people in my own home country who get upset at any suggestion that we ought to consider making it even slightly more difficult for crazy and evil people to take weapons to public places and murder our children baffles me. How these people have developed enough of a critical mass in my home country to actually have longstanding control over the debate feels like a nonsensical nightmare to me.
And on this day, when yet another horrific mass shooting has left dozens more families destroyed, I'll lend my voice to the cause and hope it makes some difference for the cause.

When a person shuts down talk of gun regulation on any level, that person is partly responsible when children in a classroom are murdered by a shooter.

When a person supports a political candidate who uses near hyperbolic Second Amendment catch-phrases to garner applause, that person is partly responsible when a crazy man easily gets a gun and shoots someone's parent.

When a person refuses to speak up for common sense solutions that would make it more difficult for these people to murder someone that could be your family member, that person is partly responsible when a shooter walks into a club somewhere and slaughters a whole bunch of people.

Every time this happens the gun debate begins anew. And a bunch of people criticize any involved in it for "politicizing" the event when instead we should be offering thoughts and prayers.

This is ludicrous.

Thoughts and prayers are not stopping this from happening. Thoughts and prayers are not keeping this situation from getting worse. Thoughts and prayers are not going to save the lives of the next people for whom we'll be asked to offer our thoughts and prayers.

Only action will do that. The only thing that will make a difference here is if those of us out there who see some sense in all of the senselessness get really brave and speak up.

So let's speak up.

And when someone degrades you or berates you for suggesting that you disrespect our founding documents and God-given rights, remember that your allegiance is not to the idiocy of those notions.

Your allegiance is to peace. And safety. And to all of those kids and used-to-be-kids who might be victimized if you don't get really brave and speak up.

I live in Canada and it's a great compromise----take a lengthy gun course and pass, then you get a gun license that expires in five years. Rinse repeat. Guns should also include responsibility, but the government should not take away the right to bear arms.

I would love to know what you propose as common sense gun control. What laws and regulations would you enact to prevent terrorism from Muslims extremist in our country? I am completely in support of keeping guns away from crazy, evil people & criminals. I'd just like to know what specific action should be taken to accomplish this. I'm tired of hearing the generic "we need more gun control" chant. I believe you to be a very smart & kind person and would honestly like to know exactly, in detail, what you think the law should be to prevent, "evil & crazy" people from gaining access to guns.

To address gun violence, let's put terrorism aside for a second. Not because it isn't important, but because the fact is gun violence (outside of terrorism in the US)kills more people. Btwn 2005-2015, 71 precious individuals were killed in terrorist attacks in the US. In that same timeframe, 301,797 precious lives were lost due to gun violence...more often than not, involving suicide.

Unfortunately, guns and gun control are part of the problem... and also only part of the solution. We also need MUCH better funding of and access to mental health care, rehabilitation programs, abuse and drug prevention, and foreign relationships.

I'm all for laws that restrict guns getting into the hands of crazy people, but let's not take focus away from the real problem here — radical Islam — which you failed to mention in this entire post. Because whatever regulations we put on these "inanimate objects," these terrible, evil people are going to continue targeting American citizens in whatever way possible.. guns, knives, bombs etc. Your rant on gun policy is a deflection from the real issue here and semi-blaming people for MURDER who disagree with you on the gun issue is absurd.

There have been a lot of mass shootings in the United States that were unrelated to radical Islam. I would go so far as to say that the majority of American mass shootings are unrelated to radical Islam.

Yes, ISIS is a huge problem, but it is not even close to the entire problem.

Great post, I'm devastated by all the death this weekend. First Christina Grimmie killed after a concert in front of her brother and now this mass shooting. You're totally right, thoughts and prayers are not going to make this stop. Gun control is only part of it though, economic disparities, apathy of American's in general when it comes to politics, mental illness. We have to start somewhere though because whatever has been happening it ain't working.

If we just love Isis and carry around rainbows and unicorns. We make it illegal for people legally trying to get guns maybe the terrorist will stop shooting people. If we vote for Bernie or Hillary well all go to collage for free and become doctors and lawyers and know everything. I mean guns kill. If we make guns illegal Isis won't kill anyone. Let's get rid of legal immigration too. We have unlimited space, resources and money here. I mean your an idiot if you support trump. You also can choose between a lying traitor and a hippie that wants to make everything free for people who hate working. But back to guns. Guns are bad and your a stupid redneck if you own one.

Gun control doesn't keep guns out of dangerous people's hands. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get a gun from a third party dealer? Until there's actually a plan that will do more than slow down the process for those trying to attain them illegally there's not going to be a change.

Idk, in Toronto recently a girl wanted to bring a gun to school, but because Canada has gun control, she didn't know how to get a gun, so she brought a knife. Two people were non-fatally stabbed, as opposed to an entire mass shooting taking place.

Definitely, figuring out a plan for reducing *illegal* gun trade is also important. But part of the issue is that a lot of those guns were initially bought legally. There are multiple ways to address access to guns, and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Thank you Jaclyn. Your comment is spot on. Of course not everyone is going to follow the law. But to no degree does that justify making no change. There's a huge difference between a mass shooting and a "mass" stabbing.

I live in a small Christian country where the only people allowed to carry guns are law enforcement officers. Nobody else has access to fire arms because they are not allowed entry into the country. I cannot imagine the loss of 50 people in one night. There are the occasional drunken fights that end up with injuries, and sometimes death. But I cannot imagine if these drunken idiots had ready access to firearms, the amount of life loss that we as a small community would have to deal with. From what I've read in the news in the US, guns have led to mass shootings (in night clubs, schools, churches, movie theaters, etc.). There are also drive-by shootings, accidental discharges, senseless loss of life. The radicalism of one small section of one religion did not lead to all these incidences. This tragic loss of life would have been avoided if there were no guns, if no one had become radicalized, if the world would just live in peace and harmony. But, it didn't and families have to deal with these losses. This news of gun violence in the US is often in the news, and when it becomes such a frequent occurrence, rather than out of the norm, what does that say about the US as a society and as a nation?

Eli, I don't think anyone would disagree that we need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who would do this. Even though I carry, I think it's absurd this man was able to purchase a gun just a few weeks ago despite the fact that he was on the FBI watch list for his association with ISIS. That being said, you cannot single him out and violate his rights without due process and he had done nothing wrong. The only other option would be to limit everyone's access to guns, which I am very much against.

A few years ago (pre-gun for me), I was in my kitchen preparing lunch for some visiting family members when a man walks right into my kitchen. I was shocked but I held on to the knife I was using to cut up sandwiches. I held the knife out and told him to leave. He informed me he wasn't leaving because someone with a gun was chasing him. There were a range of emotions but mostly anger that this stranger would bring others to my house who could have hurt me and my family. My husband called the police (who arrived 1.5 HOURS later) and the guy left because he didn't want to deal with the police.

The violation of my home and the VERY SLOW response by the police pushed me to the gun rights side of the argument. I got training, got my permit and purchased my gun. I practice as often as possible and I will state that I have right to protect myself and my family.

A little piece of me dies every time I hear something like this. So many innocent people dying because someone (who has not done anything prior to this to indicate he is dangerous) decided his cause justifies murder. I really do wish there was something we could do that would allow me my right to protect myself and keep guns out of hands of crazies, but I cannot see it.

You are a lawyer. You understand constitutional rights. How do you balance it? What could've possibly be done to keep this man from doing what he did? The reason "common sense" gun regulation talk gets shut down is because the proposed regulations discussed would do nothing to keep this guy from doing what he did. It would just make it harder for me to protect my family.

You say people like me have the blood of these people on our hands because we didn't allow anything to change after the last mass shooting. I say the anti-gun people have blood on their hands too. If one trained person in that room had a gun, the count would be much lower. But our country's anti-gun sentiment has limited places where legal gun owners are allowed to carry and these places are targets.

There was an off-duty cop with a gun in that club, moonlighting as security. There was the epitome of a "good guy with a gun" there - a responsible, trained person with a gun. 50 people still died. It will always be easier to fire indiscriminately into a crowd without caring who you hit than it will be to take out a lone person while trying to not hit innocent bystanders.

Besides, until someone actually starts shooting, how do you distinguish between the "good guy with a gun" and the bad guy? Especially if the shooter just has a pistol or two instead of a weapon that's obviously out of place. They're just another guy with a gun - could be good or bad.

Yes, it could have been more than 50. But with different laws, it could have been zero. And zero is the only number we should accept as a society. Just like Eli said, when we aren't a part of the change and the solution, we're on the team of the shooters and murderers, because we're aiding in their nefarious efforts by supplying them with rapid-fire assault weapons.

The presumption with the "good guy with a gun" theory is that 1) good guy can clearly identify bad guy, 2) good guy is actually a good marksman, 3) good guy is actually a good guy (how many times have you heard the shooter described as "a nice, quiet guy"?)...and I could go on.

Have you ever lived in a place where open carry or concealed weapons were as common as a cigarette lighter? I have. It was a lawless place called Somalia. Is that the nation we aspire to be? I'm not suggesting, Sue Ellen, that you shouldn't have the right to have a gun in your home, but I do think our nation's forefathers would have been in support of responsible gun ownership. Sue Ellen - in the situation you described above, would you have felt safer if you owned a handgun? Or is an AK47 better? Why stop there...how about a rocket launcher? To what degree do we want to arm our citizens/residents? That's what gun control is about; not about taking away all guns from private possession. I think it's fair to say as a society, we're due for a meaningful, bi-partisan discussion on the topic.

First - I am for gun control. I'm not for abolishing guns - I'm for controlling who gets them. I believe the Orlando shooter bought his guns legally. I know the man who went on a shooting spree in my town a few months ago did. We need to look at the question: Short of banning guns altogether, would these shootings have been preventable? If the answer to that question is no - we have to ask if banning them would have prevented these shootings. I suspect the answer to the that question is no as well.

However, this doesn't mean we do nothing. Getting snarky about it doesn't help. It shuts down the discussion and I agree with Eli - people who shut down the discussion are partially to blame. But so are people who vilify guns and those who own them. Doing this creates animosity and pushes people into a mode of protecting their right to own one at all costs. We need open discussion in which people understand that status quo is not working but that banning all guns isn't the answer either. I think of the Amazon series Man in the High Castle (I think that's what it's called) and it provides a chilling portrayal of what the kind of state where citizens are not allowed to defend themselves or even rise up against the government. We think we're above the need to do that but are we really?

I will be honest and say before knowing my husband I was much more in favor of extremely strict gun control laws. My husband is ex-military. He has obtained his guns legally. He takes care of them. My son does not have access to them. The ammo is not stored anywhere near the guns. And I will defend his right to own them.

I also own a gun. I've held it once. We do not have ammo for it as far as I know. It was my grandmother's - and I have a picture of her holding it while standing next to the buck she shot with it. Six points - my grandma was a bad ass. My son will own that gun one day.

I don't think most people on the gun-control side are advocating for banning *all* guns. That would be unrealistic. There's a ton of middle ground and I think part of the problem is that nobody is willing to listen to each other and find it. For instance, I'm from Alberta, and my family has always had several guns and was able to legally obtain them without too much trouble. But there's definitely more gun control than the US.

Also - I want to thank Eli. This is a charged topic and you've expressed your point of view well. What's more - you've been fair and equitable in publishing the comments, which you could easily censor. I appreciate your approach.

Sadly, so long as people believe as you do then access to quality health care for the mentally ill, will remain elusive and stigmatized.

If this was as a result of his allegiance to a terrorist organization, then you start with them and work your way back to the children being brought up in classrooms that glorify dying for Allah as a means to getting to heaven, and to making your family wealthy and proud.

It's never the weapon, honey. It's the insanity that chooses to turn it on the unsuspecting.

Many mass shooters were not diagnosed with a mental illness prior to their shooting, and it's impossible to say whether they would have been if they had seen a psychologist.

Our motivation for providing health care to the mentally ill should NOT hinge on a fear that mentally ill people are going to snap and start killing people. It should hinge on the recognition that an improved mental health system is a benefit in a variety of ways, such as reducing homelessness, improving the economy, taking a substantial burden off of caregivers who are unequipped to deal with the problem, and yes, reducing crime, but mainly petty crime.

I feel like every mass shooting, people point to reforming the mental health care system as a way to deflect the conversation on gun control, and then neither thing happens, and it makes me feel like mentally ill people just become a scapegoat in a difficult conversation.

Anon, perhaps you're not as old as me. I tend to see the world through jaded glasses, and they color my every response. It's the way I am, the way I will be, and as Mr. Pants said, it's my right to speak my mind.

Jaclyn, I've seen a good many mental health issues destroy lives. Not all snapped, some did, some did not, but every time someone walks into a place where people gather and opens fire...that person is sick, sick, sick. Maybe they just got "sick" that day, but I doubt it. There were warning signs, as we're finding out now about the Pulse shooter, and either they were ignored, not taken seriously, or the sick person was not willing to accept he/she needed help. It's not at all uncommon for a closeted homosexual to become frustrated and angry at his situation, and then lash out...albeit not to this degree...but I have also seen this. And, I've seen what compassionate mental health care can do to help someone get through. I'm not saying this shooter was closeted...but it really appears that he may have been. He may also have been a radicalized Muslim, but that takes some kind of leap from sanity, don't you think?

But here's the point I think we're all avoiding in this discussion. When fertilizer was used to perform a mass murder, there were new laws and regulations created to insure that didn't happen again. And as far as I know, it hasn't (correct me if I'm wrong).

When box cutters and airplanes were used, there were dozens of new laws and regulations put in place to avoid this kind of catastrophe in the future.

When other kinds of weapons (or even things we wouldn't consider weapons) are used to kill innocent people, there are ALWAYS changes to the laws and regulations.

Except when the weapon of choice is a gun.

Why is it that we as a society can recognize the need to change airline rules to avoid a terrorist attack, but we can't use the EXACT same logic when it comes to gun control?

I would argue that there are very, very few people advocating a complete removal of guns (if any, I don't know any personally). All we want is change and regulation. Just like with other attacks and innocent deaths.

Eli, your logic is so flawed on this. If I do not support gun control that does NOT make me partly responsible when someone is killed. That's like saying if you are pro choice, then you are partly responsible when a woman has an abortion. Everyone makes their own choices, and that is on them. I don't see you blaming ISIS which is a much more logical group to blame for this tragedy. And as we know from past events, they will kill Americans in many ways besides guns. Yes, America does have a gun problem, but even more so, we have a people problem. People who are not taught to value human life. We can't sit around and just "love and peace" our way out of this mess. The fact is that their will always be people that want to kill other people, no matter how many regulations and laws you make. Criminals do not obey laws. So gun-free zones are meaningless to them. Gun laws and restrictions are meaningless to them. Ever hear about prohibition? People still got alcohol. All the drugs that are outlawed? America has a huge drug problem. Making laws is not going to solve the problem. Ever hear of fighting fire with fire? That's why there is a gun under my bed. If that crazed person ever comes in my house, gunning for my life, I will be ready for him. And dare I say that if a few more people would be prepared, we would have a lot less gun deaths.

"If you are mentally ten years old, powered by testosterone, and educated by reality TV shows (I'll unapologetically label this class of people "those who support Donald Trump")." Really Eli? I thought you were better than this. I respect your views and thoughts on gun control. You have your right to have those opinions. And I appreciate when people engage in educated discourse over their views. Good for you for using the platform you have to advocate for your position and seek to educate and influence those you can to try and make the world a better place. But to "unapologetically" lay an ad hominem attack on millions of your fellow citizens? You're better than that. And to so easily dismiss an opposing viewpoint as complicit in murder? Come on Eli. Don't dilute your logic and your efficacy with such rote petty libel.

Choices aren't black and white. I appreciate Becky's and awesomesauciness's comments. Let's not pretend this is a simple question or that it has a simple solution. And please let's not act like anyone who has a contrary view point is just a stupid bigot of one sort or another.

And Sue Ellen. And Nicole K. I also own a legally-procured handgun, which I only ever shoot at a range. I have no need of an assault rifle or anything semi-automatic. I have no need of more bullets than the five my revolver holds. I am in favor of limiting THOSE for all civilians, but that doesn't mean that any laws that eliminate access to those will be any more effective at keeping them out of radical, fanatical, lunatic anything-phobes.

I honestly don't know what can be done. Our country is messed up, and it's clear to the rest of the world that our country is messed up. But it's more than just the gun laws.

Michelle great post. Have you done your homework on those shootings or are you going off what the media tells you? The majority of those mass shootings, except for Columbune High School and the San Bernardino shootings, were done by individuals that purchased the guns legally. Meaning background checks were performed and they were cleared. With this most recent shooting the firearms were purchased legally. The Columbine and San Bernardino shooters obtained their firearms from others that purchased them legally. That would fall under the gun show loophole. When they talk about that loop hole it is when firearm purchases between two private citizens don't require a background check. In my state private sales require a background check, but not all states have that law. What further laws aside from a complete firearm ban would you propose? It's easy to sit back and call for more "common sense" laws, but what? I would really like to hear your thoughts on this or anyone else. It is a discussion that needs to be had but just passing more laws to make people feel safer is not the answer. If passing laws is all it takes then wouldn't the law against murdering another person be all the law we should need?

I did forget. Sandy Hook shooter took the firearms from his mother. She purchased them legally.

Why the average person needs access to an assault rifle is beyond me. Aside from members of the military who are in active training or in a war zone, they should not be available. Would people still get their hands on them illegally? Some, probably. But the argument that we can't stop them all, so why try to prevent any seems ridiculous in light of what we see happening so frequently. And don't tell me you need an assault rifle for hunting either. If you can't hunt with a regular hunting weapon (a rifle, a bow, etc.) then you have no business hunting. Laws on the roads don't stop all accidents from happening, but they do stop some. The fact that they don't stop every accident doesn't make us throw our hands in the air and say we shouldn't have any laws that govern who can drive a car, and how fast, etc. This guy (ISIS or not) bought his weapon legally. At least make it harder for people like this to get their hands on guns.

The average person does not have an assault rifle, they are actually very difficult to get and require a special license to own. What the media refers to as "assault rifles" are fully automatic selective fire rifles that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. That means it is fully automatic so you can pull the trigger once and multiple bullets will come out. Unless you obtain an expensive Class-III Dealer license or tax stamp you can not buy an assault rifle. An AR-15 (which was not even used in the Orlando shooting as the media jumped to report too early, it was actual an M-5) is what is referred to as a semi-automatic weapon, not assault rifle because they only let one bullet come out when you pull the trigger. This is just an example of how mainstream media likes to use fear to push the American people towards their agenda. Orlando was a horrible event and my heart breaks for the victims and their families but the individual responsible for this was a homegrown terrorist who called 911 prior to the attack to pledge his allegiance to ISIS so do I believe this incident could have been prevented with strict gun reform, no. Terrorist will always find a way to obtain the weapons they seek such as criminals will never obey the law. Would I feel like we lived in a safer world if guns were banned? No. The people who mean to due us harm will unfortunately always find a way, whether it be with a gun or bomb or knife, etc. Our government is using this event to push gun reform while not truly looking at the real problem, terrorism and mental illness.

I carry a small 380 hand gun with me at all times, it has a small magazine clip that would allow me to fire 6 shots prior to re-loading if I chose too. I carry this not with the intent of ever hurting anyone but if I was ever in a situation like what occurred in Orlando or any of the other tragic examples then at least I would have a fighting chance. I believe that is how most American feel when it comes to the decision to carry a weapon.

I respect everyone's individual opinion on the topic but I believe the media is controlling this show and until the American people are given all the facts and not edited snip its of the truth that suits the agenda we will never make any progress one way or another. It's a very scary world we live in right now.

If your first reaction to the Orlando tragedy is finger pointing and gun laws, you need to unplug your internet and get off for the day. Image bearers were murdered in cold blood today, and our response should be heartbreak and compassion for families and communities that were changed forever this morning.

Father, forgive us for ignoring the things that really matter.(copied from David Blair on Facebook)

We are all hurting (I hope) for the friends/families who lost loved ones... lets keep things in perspective here -

One more thing, and I really wish I hadn't thoroughly read your post because now I'm angry, I support Donald Trump.

No, I'm not testosterone fueled.

I may be mentally 10, but frankly that's a plus when you get to be my age.

And, no I don't support him because I love him or his rhetoric. I support him because Sen. Sanders is nutty as a fruitcake - but, truth be known I kinda like him on a personal level he's funny as hell - and Mrs. Clinton is a liar of the highest order. A liar that is also power-hungry, which makes her dangerous.

Do I think this post was fueled by anger? You know it was. Anger and passion, both good things to have, young man, and things you can have and espouse without being mean. You should try that next time.

Saucy, perhaps, but you just got a little less awesome. Every negative you say about Clinton can be said about Trump. However, Clinton is focussed, strong, disciplined and experienced and Trump is clearly not.

That's okay, Anon, again...we don't all want to agree on everything and clearly you and I are miles apart politically, and that's fine. I enjoy lively debate, and I enjoy listening to fresh ideas. And, if that makes me less awesome then that's okay, too. :-)

Oh, Eli. You know I love you, and I know that this post was partly fueled by overwhelming grief. Because what happened in Orlando is unthinkably terrible and should never have been allowed to happen. I get that.

But the issues that led to Orlando and San Bernardino (which is literally 14 miles from where I work) and Sandy Hook and so many other places are about so much more than the weapons they used. I agree that those villains shouldn't have had access to legal guns. But if they hadn't had legal access, do you honestly believe that would have fixed the problem and stopped those terrible people from murdering people?

I agree that something must be done, but sweeping, broad statements about "more gun control" don't fix the problem. They are soundbites that don't offer actual solutions. What do YOU mean when you say gun control? Is it about more screening? Limiting access to everyone? Limiting access to some? How do we decide who? And what do we do about people like the Tsarnaev brothers who would find other ways to commit their crimes?

It's not that I think these people should have unfettered access because I support the 2nd amendment. It's just that the problem is so much more complicated than people want to admit and so, instead of sitting down and working together to figure out solutions, we all get mad at each other and then sulk in a corner until the next time happens.

And, for the record, I am not "mentally ten years old, powered by testosterone, and educated by reality TV shows..." and I left the Republican party because I REFUSE to vote for Donald Trump. Don't worry, I'm not offended by this sweeping (and incorrect) generalization. Just want to clear things up there.

I agree with Jen Kent. Just because we can't stop every shooting doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If that's the case why change airport security after 9/11? Seems like there should be some increase in gun control (limiting weapons that cause mass destruction etc) but also we all need to look out for one another. What I mean is that if you know someone who is mentally unstable there should be a universal number (other than 911) you can call to get them help. We need to cultivate caring and socially conscious behaviors in our children from a young age so that they aren't afraid of being called a "nark" or a "rat". We should also empower our police force across the board so that people feel safe and don't have to take matters into their own hands. We need to have an absolute no tolerance policy for racism/discrimination among this force so that all people feel safe and treated fairly. It's hard work and costly, and it may take some time to yield the best results since educating future generations takes time, but I believe in US. How shameful if we ruin this world after God has given us every tool we need to succeed.

Also, you can't have it both ways, in order to increase safety you have to give up a little more freedom. Every time you obey the speed limit or don't drive dunk your giving up the freedom to do as you choose, but all of us as a society are safer. No one wants to give up control but we need to fight the inclination for self interest/preservation and focus on taking care of our nation. These are just my thoughts on the issue. So many words written written in these comments but we are all to busy feeling too helpless or selfish to throw some solutions out there. Even if they are naive or unrealistic or out right wrong we should focus on solutions instead of asking the same questions over and over. Ok. I'm done. I hate that d.t. has me worried enough to even THINK about this sht, let alone comment about it!

Guns were made to kill more efficiently. Why do people, especially people who are Christian (that may or may not be you), cling so fervently to a man made law that clearly goes against one of God's most important laws. Thou shalt not kill. Even if a person aims to disable an aggressor the likelihood of death is greatly increased. Constitutional or not, some things need to be a thing of the past. It's simple. What kind of world do you want to live in? I didn't say *hope* once in my previous posts, although i think it's an essential part of life, i spoke of taking steps today towards a future worth living or the very least an open minded discussion from both sides. If my suggestions aren't to your liking, you then contribute your own solutions. Apologizing, negating, criticizing and siting an outdated so-called right (to kill) will get us no where.

So apparently if I disagree with you I am the mental equivalent of a 10 year old. Thanks. You may be baffled by people like me but I can say the same about you. People on your side have completely forgotten history. As a lawyer you should know the purpose of our second amendment. It is not for hunting, it is not for sport, it isn't even for protecting our homes. It is to maintain a Free State. The 2nd amendment was created to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. You can't do that with muskets. Now most people on your side think that something like that could never happen in the United States. They overlook the fact that countries like Russia, Germany, China and so on have disarmed their population and then proceeded slaughter them. Not 20 people here, 10 people there or even 50. No they slaughtered them to the tune of millions. But that can't happen in America right? In America we are a nation of laws and rights protected by the constitution. But that is exactly what you are fighting against. People on your side don't care about facts. Like that fact that the Assault weapons ban already imposed on our citizens did not reduce crime. Like the fact that more people are beaten to death than are killed by "assault weapons". You say we dominate the argument. Maybe it's because we have facts on our side. Maybe it's because we have the constitution on our side. Maybe it's because your only freaking argument it so restrict the liberty of the people. That is your only argument, which has already been attempted and failed. Everybody here wants things to change. You don't get to claim the moral high ground, and the fact that you attempt to do so pisses me off. My opinion differs from yours that doesn't mean I care less. From my perspective, the opinion I hold protects the people. That, my friend, is a very moral and honorable cause. I want this to stop and people on my side have plenty of ideas on how to do so. Your side is just as stubborn as mine. It's a noble thought that peace is the only solution. It would be lovely if the world worked that way but it doesn't. How well would it have faired for us in WWII if we would have all laid down our guns in peaceful resistance? I'm no expert but I don't think peace would have won the day. Sometimes a fight is necessary.

Thank you Eli for being willing to open up a can of political worms that you knew could never fully return to the can. I am far too much of a non-confrontationalist to publish my thoughts on the subject, but I appreciate all the views shared in the comments in order to help me understand all sides of the issue.

Oh how I wish that more politicians were not labeled as "flip flops" for making necessary compromises to vital legislation. I wish we had more independent politicians who are more loyal to their constituents than they are to their party. I wish there were more civil discussions than name-calling ignorant rants.

Poor Cory. It's hard having a 10 year old's mental capacity, isn't it? I don't think you understood what Eli wrote at all. Don't worry - no one is going to take away your guns. You clearly need them to feel safe and secure. The NRA's stilted narrative intentionally causes paranoia and obscures common sense especially when targeting those of the aforementioned mental capacity.

If you are going to be rude and name-call/belittle someone who has a varying opinion than you, at least have the balls to do it non-anonymously. Eli had every right to voice his opinion on his blog and Cory had every right to respond to the way Eli voiced that opinion. Let's all be civil here in Strangerville. Yours truly, Matt Pants and Ollie Pants

I quite respect Cory, and appreciate his passion on the topic, even if we do disagree on much of it. I regret that I offended him or others with my off-color joke about Trump supporters and I've removed it from the post because I don't think it was helpful or funny.

I'm a few days late to this, but as a mother of 4 young children,an aunt of a lesbian, a cousin to a cross dresser, a wife to someone with (probably too many ) guns and the sister of an avid hunter.. I agree whole heartedly that guns are an issue. While my family loves the sport of hunting and the feeling of safety while carrying, do we REALLY need as many guns as I know so many of us do? My home has more than 10. People collect them, some are antiques that cannot fire, some are pistols, shotguns, rifles and even air soft (not so soft). At what point do we say, enough is enough? Guns alone are not solely the issue, it's the number of guns lying around houses and cars. When do we put a limit to how many a person can have? I know my family members and friends will be outraged that someone dare tell them it's unreasonable to have 20 guns, some of which have never been shot. For the "sake of collecting". If we stopped pawn shops from buying and selling.. I don't know. Utah has such strict liquor laws. Can't buy on Sundays, only in the state liquor store. Why would it be such an extreme thing to say, "hey we should limit the amount of guns produced and distributed." Limit the amount of guns allowed per home, even with permits and classes, even with trigger locks and safes. Limit what our country has access to but not eliminate it.